To reference the iconic 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, have the Europeans “Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”? One could wonder. After all, in 1956, the USSR sent 200,000 soldiers into Hungary. The West did not send arms to the Hungarians, call for Soviet regime change, or consider sending troops. In 1968, the USSR sent forces into Czechoslovakia to crush the “Prague Spring” liberalization movement. The West did not send arms to the Czechoslovakians, call for Soviet regime change, or consider sending troops. (In fact, the U.S. actually stated it would not get involved.)
A very compelling reason for this, of course, was the atomic sword of Damocles hanging over all and sundry. Why, then-president Ike Eisenhower explicitly said regarding Hungary that he was concerned about sparking nuclear conflict. Now, though, with Russia no longer being the USSR, Moscow has given up all its nuclear weapons.
Or, so one might think given Western European chest-thumping.
(In reality, Russia can still incinerate the world.)
In the wake of the Friday dust-up between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump/Vice President J.D. Vance, Britain and France have said, reports The Telegraph, that they’re developing a “coalition of the willing” that aims to “create security guarantees that include British troops on the ground in Ukraine and fighter jets.”
Now, this isn’t quite as ominous as it sounds, as it would only happen after a ceasefire was established. The troops wouldn’t be under a NATO banner, either, and would constitute a deterrent. Nonetheless, why do Europeans continue crossing a red line that, as with Hungary and Czechoslovakia, was always considered inviolable? And will Russian president Vladimir Putin, for whom Kyiv-NATO ties are inconceivable, accept NATO troops by another name in Ukraine?
Woke Defenders of Democracy?
Writing Sunday, American Thinker’s Uilliam Mac Ruaidhri points out the irony of the Europeans’ “principled” stand. “European leaders in Brussels declare themselves the ‘leaders of the free world,’” he writes, “while arresting citizens for memes.”
Ruaidhri then offers a brief history of the current Ukraine conflict. In a nutshell, Ruaidhri states that the war began in 2014 with the ouster of the nation’s then-president Viktor Yanukovych. His supporters, mainly in Donbas, then seceded, which led to civil war. Despite the later brokering of an agreement designed to achieve peace, Donbas was subjected to intermittent shelling.
“Kiev blamed Russia for the shelling,” Ruaidhri then stated. “Residents in Donbas blamed Kiev. Who was at fault? Who knows?” Whatever the case, after years of failed negotiations, Russia decided to invade.
In fairness, Ruaidhri’s historical analysis does seem a bit tendentious. Regardless, he may be correct in stating, as he does, that Europe “is delusional.” As he opines:
I wonder if perhaps it’s time for those who display their Ukrainian flags to rethink what it means: Specifically, does it mean supporting Brussels, a large, inefficient, bureaucratic machine that blames Russia for all of Europe’s economic woes and whose war mongers thump their chest like foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals? Or does it mean supporting the Ukrainian military, which goes door-to-door, dragging men to war, forcing conscription?
… Regarding peace, Zelensky and Brussels incessantly use two phrases: “lasting peace” and “security guarantees,” but their proposals are vague and unrealistic. In the real world, a security guarantee would mean American boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Of course, the argument “Ukraine has a right to self-determination, and Russia had no business invading” is compelling. Yet a more in-depth historical analysis reveals that matters aren’t quite that simple.
The Expansionist Power
Now, many will say regarding Russia’s actions that expansionism is always a threat.
Russia may agree, too.
Let’s talk about expansionism. NATO, the North American Treaty Organization, was created to counter the Soviet Union. Thus, that evil empire’s early-’90s collapse made it rational for NATO to, in a sense, stand down. This is especially true since after the Berlin Wall’s fall, Russia pulled its army back to within its borders and arguably began behaving in a more pro-American fashion. Why, there was perhaps even an opportunity to forge friendly ties with Moscow. Note that it, being characteristically European and Christian as we were, could’ve been a culturally congruent ally against China.
Instead, the pseudo-elite globalists expanded NATO to Russia’s very borders. This was the equivalent of Russia or China forging a military alliance with Mexico, Cuba, Canada, and the Bahamas. In fact, despite then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assuring Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would extend “not one inch [farther] eastward,” the alliance has since more than doubled in size.
Then there was the talk of Ukraine joining NATO. Remember here that the nation had been part of Russia/USSR for 200-plus years. It also contains a pipeline network Russia relies on to facilitate its energy business, which drives its economy. Thus did Putin say that for Moscow, NATO in Russia was a red line.
Do we think he didn’t mean it?
Prudent Principles
Of course, Ukraine’s woke “defenders of democracy” fancy themselves principled. But here’s a real principle: Just War Doctrine. And one of its elements, do note, is that a proposed military action is immoral unless it does more good than harm. Is this the case with our playing of chicken with Putin?
Some may now wonder: Why must we be the ones to tread softly? The answer comes down to what could be called Russia’s “Monroe Doctrine.” Like it or not, you can’t stomp around in another great power’s backyard like a T-Rex in Jurassic Park. For that great power, in this case Russia, will not back down. The lost face globally and message “We won’t even protect our own doorstep” make that a non-starter.
Really, though, perhaps the European chicken hawks ought to listen to someone they admire, Barack Obama. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” he said in a 2012 debate, dismissing the notion of considering Russia our main geopolitical foe.
As to this, Trump is apparently trying to reset U.S.-Russia relations. And why not? If we can break bread with woke “Soviet Europe,” maybe we can make un-woke post-Soviet Moscow an ally, too.
